Genarlow Wilson Case Expedited
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:
The Georgia Supreme Court has voted to hold a hearing more than two months earlier than originally planned in the case of a Douglas County man who is serving a 10-year prison sentence for receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old girl when he was 17.
A hearing is now set in Genarlow Wilson’s case for July 20 at 10 a.m. In voting today, the court reversed an earlier decision to deny a speedier process, a ruling that would have delayed a hearing on the appeal until October.
My best wishes to Mr. Wilson for a speedy release.
I haven’t talked about this before, but I have always thought this case was outrageous. Don’t get me wrong: when my daughter is 15, I hope she won’t be engaging in oral sex with 17-year-olds or anyone else. But the idea that consensual oral sex by teenagers could lead to a mandatory 10-year prison sentence is, in my view, beyond the pale.
And — by the way — every prosecutor I have ever discussed the case with agrees.
He violated the law. You do the crime, you do the time.
jpm100 (44e950) — 7/10/2007 @ 3:09 amMy opinion — he should have taken the plea bargain offered before and after trial.
sam (781d46) — 7/10/2007 @ 5:01 amMaybe every prosecutor to whom you spoke, but does every parent of a teenager?
There’s a lot more to this case: Mr Wilson and his compatriots also screwed a 17 or 18 year old girl, who was above the age of consent, but was so falling down drunk as to be half unconscious; she was not in any condition to give anything remotely like a reasonable consent. This isn’t a case of two teenagers who got caught while they were out on a date.
I have absolutely no problem with Mr Wilson serving his ten years.
Dana (3e4784) — 7/10/2007 @ 5:44 amI don’t believe a mandatory 10 year prison sentence was equitable. However, it makes me uncomfortable to see this kid’s behavior and past behavior whitewashed.
sam (781d46) — 7/10/2007 @ 5:50 amjpm, that’s fine…
Only right now, what he got 10 years for isn’t a crime. He’d never have been charged.
So no, he shouldn’t br in jail right now…
Scott Jacobs (373eaa) — 7/10/2007 @ 6:24 amJust wondered if you’ve actually seen the video of Wilson sexually assaulting the passed out girl.
While the news article portrays this as innocent teenage sex, the descriptions I’ve heard from people who have actually viewed the tape is that this was a far different situation where a group of young men took full advantage of a semi-conscious girl.
And before you say that the jury didn’t convict him of rape, ask yourself if juries always get the verdict right. If you insist on relying on the jury, I hope that you will also promise to never question the OJ verdict again.
Swamp Fox (a4e487) — 7/10/2007 @ 6:48 amI’ve been aware about this case for years. I was at Vanderbilt when the charge cost him his football scholarship and now I live in Georgia. The law has since been changed to exclude consensual sex of this sort.
Turnmeister (69c4b2) — 7/10/2007 @ 6:50 amThe fact is such events occur frequently, whether we approve of it or not. The problem has to do with the racial overtones of the case. Many have pointed out that had it been all white kids, no charges would have been filed.
Easy to say, but I have yet to have seen it proved.
sam (781d46) — 7/10/2007 @ 6:58 amPatterico: I believe it is true that this wouldn’t have been a crime in California. Perhaps this is one of those cases where different rules in different states is a good thing?
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 7/10/2007 @ 7:00 amJTFR, the sentence in this case is particularly egregious because the “Romeo and Juliet” exception to the statutory rape law applied only to intercourse and not to oral sex.
I don’t think Mr Wilson is a very nice guy, maybe he should serve a short jail term, but 10 years for using a mouth instead of a vagina doesn’t make much sense.
Andrew J. Lazarus (678e47) — 7/10/2007 @ 7:03 amGiven the treatment received by the Duke lacrosse players, someone must be mentally impaired to believe that it wouldn’t be news if a group of white kids (including a star athlete) sexually assaulted a passed out young black girl. In fact, the opposite is more likely true, that is, if it wasn’t for the racial aspects of this case and the fact that Wilson was an athlete, then no one would claiming that the sentence was unfair. Certainly we wouldn’t have the NAACP issuing statements in support of the attackers.
Swamp Fox (a4e487) — 7/10/2007 @ 7:04 amSee the video. This was rape. I want to see the people who say he is innocent to volunteer their 15 year old daughters to date him when he gets out. Yea, sure.
ted (d06f67) — 7/10/2007 @ 7:05 amjpm100, do you really think it’s fair to be thrown in jail for 10 years for getting a blowjob? Scooter Libby won’t spend a single day behind bars. He did the crime, shouldn’t he do the time too? According to an article I just read in the Times-Picayune, the national average sentence for men who kill their female partners is two to six years in prison. Is it really fair that a guy who is convicted of getting a blowjob from a girl 2 years younger than him should spend more time in prison than the average guy who is convicted of murdering his wife????
Dana, unless you were on the jury that heard this case, I don’t think you have any basis upon which to make those statements. In any case, it’s irrelevant what happened with the other girl because that’s not what Genarlow was convicted of.
Swamp Fox, are you advocating a reform to our justice system whereby it’s okay to ignore the jury’s verdict just because you say so? Maybe we should let George W. Bush stay on after his stint as President to be The Decider. He will Decide whether each jury gave the “right” verdict and then Decide the appropriate punishment based upon his gut feeling of whether the perp meant to do it and whether he has a chance of becoming born-again.
Dylan (8a3307) — 7/10/2007 @ 7:08 amIf the Georgia Supreme Court upholds the reduction of the charge it should make for some interesting law.
nk (37e215) — 7/10/2007 @ 7:35 amGiven the facts of this case, and the law in Georgia at the time of trial, he deserved the sentence. He was guilty of the crime charged, and there was a videotape to prove it.
He was offered plea bargains (that his co-defendents took) before, during and after his trial.
Given the law in Georgia now, it would not be an injustice for the system to release him now.
What is going to be truly outrageous, is when he files a lawsuit against the state of Georgia as soon as he is released.
gahrie (de5a83) — 7/10/2007 @ 7:45 amYou know, I took a 15-year old to my high school prom when I was 18. I was a complete gentleman, but the point is it is kind of scary to imagine that something like this could happen.
Still, the kid’s a scumbag. But he shouldn’t be in jail for getting a hummer from a girl 2 years his junior.
otcconan (84759a) — 7/10/2007 @ 7:51 amYou’re exactly right. And the other people talking about another rape he allegedly committed, well, if he did, he’s a bastard. It wouldn’t bother me a bit if he spent to years in jail for that, if he’s guilty.
But that isn’t what he was convicted of. 10-years for getting oral sex from someone two years younger is insane.
Just evil — far more evil than the oral sex. Assuming there was anything morally wrong with receiving a blow job from someone within 2-years of his age, which I do not acknowledge.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/10/2007 @ 7:56 amSomething like what happening? You mean if you took her to a motel, liquored her up, gave her drugs, had sex with a passed out 17 year old, had oral sex with the 15 year old, and it was all caught on tape?
sam (781d46) — 7/10/2007 @ 8:00 amhe’s guilty of receiving a bj while black. sentence him to do a public service rap video, then let him go.
assistant devil's advocate (d204cd) — 7/10/2007 @ 8:36 amim sure you never intended a pun when you wished him a “speedy release”.
colin mcdonald (907b77) — 7/10/2007 @ 8:57 amBingo. If this video is such good evidence of rape, then try him on that charge, not send him up because of some bizarre discrepancy in sentencing between coitus and fellatio. (His generation views the latter as significantly less intimate than the former; my parents’ generation was the other way around…)
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 7/10/2007 @ 9:25 amIt seems to me that there are two perspectives on this case that are talking past each other.
One side believes that the defendant in fact raped this girl. They believe she was drunk/drugged beyond the point of being able to consent (not legally consent, since she can’t consent legally; just consent the way any teenager consents). Therefor, the sexual acts were forced, and forced sexual acts = rape.
The other side looks at the legal reality that a 17-year-old is sentenced to 10 years for oral sex with a 15-year-old. The elements of proving this offense go no further than the ages of the two parties; the consent or lack thereof is irrelivant.
The “he raped her” group isn’t particularly interested in the broader implications of a law that would kids in jail for 10 years for consensual sex (it doesn’t matter whether the sex her was consensual or not; if they were madly in love, he still does 10 years). They’re mad at this particular guy, and want him to pay for his actions, regardless of the logic of the law he is convicted under.
And the “no 10 years for teenage sex” group isn’t concerned with the facts of this particular case, because they’re disturbed by a general law that would put many of us in jail for a decade for risky sexual behavior in high school.
I have to admit, that I’m with the crowd that’s disturbed by the general law. Excusing a generally inexcusable law because it happens to catch someone you’re sure is guilty of something else, but couldn’t get a conviction on that other crime, is a terrible idea.
Phil (427875) — 7/10/2007 @ 9:32 amNot to mentiont the fact that this particular law was designed to prevent child molesters and whatnot from getting around charges by forcing oral sex. Shows what happens when lawmakers are not careful with writing law.
I’ve read the details on this case and its ridiculous. He is guilty of a crime only because the particular law is written poorly. Period. Libby got a commutation, this guy deserves a pardon.
And to those who say, ‘he had a chance to plea’, he sure did. And it would’ve given him the legal label ‘sex offender’ and all the applicable administrative fun that goes along with it. I would not have have taken the plea either.
Schmoe (20ce31) — 7/10/2007 @ 9:43 amI live in Douglasville Ga. I am Black male, in my second year of law school, and am fairly conservative. I am a law and order type, so many of my liberal friends would consider me a “Lock em’ up and throw away the key” or “Hanging” type person, from a legal perspective.
But this case is pure BS. The law is not about Karma or the rule of “You may not be guilty of this, buy you are guilty of something” do not wash. The jury saw the taape of the inebriated 17 year old and did not convict of rape. end of story. The jury saw the tape of the fellatio by the 15 year old, and convicted. End of story… or maybe not.
The spirit of the law and the letter of the law are in question because the legislature changed the fellatio between a minor and a person 2 years older to be a misdemeanor with no jail time.
Also, the application if the law by this DA is suspect. During the Wilson trial, a white school teacher was convicted of having sex with her student. You know how many days she served in jail? … ZERO. There are also other cases of sexual conduct between people within this same catagory of Wilson and the 15 year old, that were not treated as aggravated child molestation.
Is the DA racist? Maybe not. I think it is more a case of him feeling safe to bring the hammer down on Black boys who portrayed themselves as thugs (Braids, baggy clothes, booze, objectifying women, all around piss poor behavior) in a video, and not thinking the community would find that sentencing odd.
If all instances of this kind of behavior resulted in Aggravated Child Molestation charges, then one could argue at least the judicial system in Georgia is consistent. But we are all not that naive to think the only cases of statutory rape/aggravated child molestation involve teenage Black males having sex with 15 year old class mates, as was also the case with Marcus Dixon.
Chris G (9b36b2) — 7/10/2007 @ 9:51 amWhy are so many people on here concerned about the application of the “10 years for teenage sex” law? This law has been revised and thus the risks you point to are no longer applicable.
The issue in Patterico’s post is whether Wilson should be released. Those of you saying he should be released ignore the fact that he and his friends got two girls drunk to the point of unconsciousness, sexually assaulted the older one, sodmized the younger one and videotaped it all. As far as I can tell, the only reason you would excuse these abhorent actions is because the law under which he was convicted could also capture your high school romantic activity. But unless you also went around raping passed-out girls, then your situation would not be the same.
Swamp Fox (a4e487) — 7/10/2007 @ 10:33 amIt is likely that the jury didn’t convict on the rape because the other charge was available to them to send this guy away for what they deemed an appropriate amount of time.
Without the oral sex charge for them to consider, this jury would have convicted him on the rape charge.
I suppose a prisoner could contest his manslaughter conviction because he in fact planned the killing and should have been convicted on the first-degree murder charge instead. He could rightly argue that he’s serving time for a crime he didn’t commit.
J Curtis (ecc9cc) — 7/10/2007 @ 11:01 amSchmoe @23 is exactly right: this was a poorly written law. This was compounded when the legislature revised the law to remove the distinction for oral sex but refused to make it apply retroactively. What possible sense of justice or law and order did any of this serve?
Why the prosecutors continue to appeal the court ruling which reduced Wilson’s charge to that which currently applies in the State – and that which would have applied had not the legislature been inept in drafting the law in the first place is beyond me. They also refuse to release him on bond pending the appeal. Again I ask what possible sense of justice or law and order does this serve?
The current law (as well as the reduction in charges he was granted on the appeal) would require a maximum of 12 months imprisonment – he’s been incarcerated for 2 years at this point. Vaginal sex always carried the 12 month maximum.
I have not seen (and have absolutely no desire to ever see) the video that many of you suggest offers proof of him having non-consensual sex with a 17 year old. However the jury did see the video, as he was charged with that rape along with oral sex with the 15 year old minor (which I gather was also on the video). He was aquitted of that rape charge by the jury. As reprehensible as his behavior in that case may appear to me, I will not substitute my judgement for those jurors who no doubt carefully reviewed the matter.
Bob Loblaw (23d1c4) — 7/10/2007 @ 11:15 amSwamp Fox @25 & J Curtis @ 26: The facts of the case (including subsequent comments from jurors) do back up your assertions.
Wikipedia provides a good jumping off point for the actual facts:
Bob Loblaw (23d1c4) — 7/10/2007 @ 11:26 amhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genarlow_Wilson
That’s the problem when juries act improper and consider the sentence. It was like Fleiss where they acquitted on the drug possession and found her guilty on the procuring, not knowing that the sentence was mandatory prison. Bad jury!
sam (781d46) — 7/10/2007 @ 12:06 pmThis case has been an outrage from the beginning. If I recall, this young man was on his way to college with a scholarship when he got arrested and convicted.
When I was a teenager, the age of consent was 21. I wasn’t engaging in oral sex when I was 15 (I don’t think I knew about oral sex) with my boyfriend who was 17. He was still my boyfriend when I was 17 and he was 19, and when I was 19 and he was 21. We were engaging in sex by that time, but since the age of consent was 21, we would have been breaking the law. We were engaged to marry by that time, but we could not marry until I turned twenty-one and since my Mother wanted me to finish college, she would not give permission. We eloped on my 21st birthday. He was sent to Vietnam for his 2nd tour one week later, I discovered I was pregnant a month after that and the telegram came informing me of his death a week later. I think back to that time when contemplating this case and think about how the night I lost my virginity and I was 2 years underage according to the law and my boyfriend was leaving for his first tour in a war zone the next morning. He could have been going to jail for 10 years? Sometimes I wish that were the case and I wouldn’t have been left with a brand new baby, 21 years old, and a widow.
Leslie (73f60a) — 7/10/2007 @ 12:24 pmThis has been a horrible thing. I have not seen the video, but to describe it as “rape” seems a tad bit extreme. I’m glad the law has been changed since this case came to light, in fact, the law was changed because of this specific case. I’ll look for the video I suppose, just because I’ve always imagined it as some drunk kids at a party, not a tie’m down type event. Anyway being overly blunt here, 10 years for head from a girl two years younger, his college future down the toilet, hell his life ruined from some oral sex. Not that I like to bring up Bill Clinton here, but come on…
G (722480) — 7/10/2007 @ 12:43 pmTo Chris G,
I don’t think the DA is racist in this case. I’d speculate the judge was perhaps, but I still doubt it. As far as the DA is concerned, he is just doing his job and believes if this conviction is overturned, so will simular cases, or at least give access and flood his office with appeals. I say thats total hogwash, but whatever.
G (722480) — 7/10/2007 @ 12:46 pmJ Curtis:
Rick Wilcox (71646f) — 7/10/2007 @ 1:27 pmJust to clarify a point here for you, the rape charge and ACM charge were crimes alleged against two different victims. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren’t aware of that.
Wow, Phil, you’re making sense today. Must have been taking your Wheaties®.
And Leslie, you’re entire comment is just profound and heartrending.
I am glad you were able to give your boyfriend, who fought for our country and more importantly was doing nothing wrong by wanting you, physical and emotional pleasure before his death.
To reiterate, everything you said was correct.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/10/2007 @ 1:34 pmAnd by boyfriend, I should have said husband. My apologies.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/10/2007 @ 1:35 pmPatrick, so you don’t like someone getting 10 years for what he did, so it’s ok that the judge overstepped his authority in ordering him released? I thought we were supposed to object to judges overruling the legislature, to judges making the law up as they go along? The legislature decided to only overturn the law, they didn’t decide to free those convicted of it. Point me to the Georgia law that gives judges the power to let out of jail those they deem worthy and I’ll say fine, but absent that, the judge was grandstanding and should be smacked down.
steve sturm (40e5a6) — 7/10/2007 @ 1:39 pmHmmmmm…..I wonder what the verdict would have been if Bill Clinton had been his defense attorney.
.
G. Taylor (a4c306) — 7/10/2007 @ 2:13 pmSteve #34 and I seem to be only ones looking at what’s at stake here — a judicial test of proportionality in non-capital cases. This case may very well be the ideal one for executive clemency. But so far, the courts have very broadly refused to overule the judgment of the legislature as to the severity of the sentence when the sentence is not the death penalty.
I have seen the test of “irrationality” applied in a handful of cases — e.g. where selling milk powder as heroin was punished more severely than selling actual heroin … the Court kind of saying “wadda, is this the druggie protection act?” I have also seen judges being disciplined and removed from the bench for finding the defendant guilty on a probationable lesser-included when the State had proven the mandatory-minimum more serious charge.
I am betting that the Georgia Supreme Court will deny relief to the defendant and refer the case to the Governor. If it does not, I look forward to a very interesting opinion.
nk (37e215) — 7/10/2007 @ 2:53 pmnk: Certainly seems like the best way to handle it. I wonder if they didn’t apply for a pardon because they had to wait until the appeals were finished?
sam (781d46) — 7/10/2007 @ 3:11 pmSam #37,
Could be. In Illinois you only have to exhaust direct appeal remedies. Perhaps Georgia also requires exhaustion of collateral remedies.
nk (37e215) — 7/10/2007 @ 3:27 pmThis will make some of you happy.
http://www.wlky.com/news/13644528/detail.html?subid=10101262
gahrie (de5a83) — 7/10/2007 @ 4:20 pm22/Phil:
Yep, you hit it right on.
I don’t know the facts, so let’s assume Defendant is a high-end scumbag guilty of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby and sending him to Michael Jackson. If you can’t convict him of that, tough.
17+15=misdemeanor at best. A 10-year sentence is wildly disproportionate. Should he have taken a deal? Maybe; I have no idea of the facts. But no matter what, 10 years is way, way, way too long.
–JRM
JRM (de6363) — 7/10/2007 @ 4:37 pmHe was tried and convicted in a court of law by an jury which was racially divided. He was duly sentenced by a respected judge.
Everything else is just made up emotion because he had college football prospects – believe me there are MANY serving 5’s and tens for having sex with underage girls in Georgia.
Also, everyone thinks their own sentence is too long.
EricPWJohnson (92aae0) — 7/10/2007 @ 6:47 pmWhat people are trying to do is subvert Georgia’s system of justice.
Georgia is Georgia, California is California.
EricPWJohnson (92aae0) — 7/10/2007 @ 6:49 pmIronically you bring up Libby. My statement was facetious. It was to contrast in an about face in demeanor in Patterico’s tone about serving sentences. Contrasting this case with Libby’s commutation.
Is this guy deserving of a commutation and more than Libby. Yes. Why? His violation of the law actually did little real harm, if any, in comparison to to the harm the law was meant to address.
In Libby’s situation, Armitage being the initial leaker pretty much would let Cheney, Rove, or whoever for leaking off the hook.
Although I haven’t had the time to scan the trial transcripts and probably never will, I’m at the mercy of others to reduce the findings. It really hasn’t been make clear to me the mechanics of what Libby did prevented further investigation.
So I haven’t seen a case made that Libby’s actions caused substantial harm, or any harm, to the investigation [moonbat reflexive claims aside]. And perhaps it shouldn’t have let Libby completely off the hook. But I saw no sense of mitigation of sentence from the hollowness of effects that Libby’s actions had. Instead I saw a rationale that was essentially “you did the crime, you do the time”.
jpm100 (44e950) — 7/10/2007 @ 6:57 pmJust to clarify a point here for you, the rape charge and ACM charge were crimes alleged against two different victims. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren’t aware of that.
Comment by Rick Wilcox
There was one trial. The jury chose to convict on the charge that would administer what they felt was the appropriate punishment for his behavior towards multiple victims.
I’ll assume you just didn’t realize that there was only one trial.
J Curtis (ecc9cc) — 7/10/2007 @ 7:45 pmHis defenders make note Genarlow is an honor
jimboster (6e04e1) — 7/10/2007 @ 8:05 pmstudent. I’ve seen him interviewed and, if he’s an
example of America’s best students, we’re in trouble.
Can you explain to me what criminal law has as elements different conduct with different victims in aggregate?
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/10/2007 @ 9:40 pmRobin, thank you. To be a bit more blunt in my defense of my point…
Can you please explain to me why any rational jury would say “we think he’s guilty of raping the 17-year-old girl, but we won’t convict him on it because we’re convicting him for molesting the 15-year-old”? You might as well say “Well, we think he killed that other girl, but he’s already facing the death penalty for killing the first one so we’ll just acquit him of that one”? That’s not how the process works. That’s not even jury nullification. That’s just insane.
More to the point, how do you know that the jury decided to acquit on a rape charge that they believed to be proven because they were already convicting on the molestation? How do you know they would have convicted Wilson for raping the 17-year-old had he not been up for ACM in regards to the 15-year-old?
Oh, I know.
Apparently God Himself has appeared on Patterico!
Rick Wilcox (71646f) — 7/10/2007 @ 10:00 pmYou hit it out of the park, Rick W. Well said.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/10/2007 @ 11:46 pmWait a second…if this law could be used to put Akon in jail, maybe it isn’t a bad idea.
otcconan (854a75) — 7/11/2007 @ 2:25 am“Violation of the law did little real harm” How so? As I recall he was part of a group caught on video screwing a 17 year old drunk girl (That’s ok because she is 17?)and having oral sex with a minor. Who says the oral sex was consenual? The girl? What did the video show?
It is not a matter of everyone does it therfore he should get off. He got caught and it is against the law. The guy wouldn’t take a deal and the jury found him guilty.
I wonder if he was on the receiving end of some “Consenual” oral sex while in prison.
Davod (3392f5) — 7/11/2007 @ 4:02 am47-Wilcox
Are you people still claiming that there was more than one trial? Can you provide a link that would show this?
The news reports that I read on google news that seem to be sympathetic to Wilson try to give the impression that there were two juries, one for the acquittal and one for the conviction. They report “a jury” convicted Wilson on the one charge and later in the article they report “a jury” acquitted on the other charge.
The non-sypathetic news reports and the wikipedia entry report “a jury” in regards to one outcome then “the jury” in regards to the other outcome.
So which is it, one trial or two?
If there was only one trial, it wouldn’t be pontification to expect that this jury, like all juries, used all of the tools and options at its disposal to hammer out a conclusion. It becomes your burden to prove that this didn’t happen in this instance. There is no assumption of innocence at this point, there is only an assumption of guilt after conviction. Try to do it without pontificating.
J Curtis (ecc9cc) — 7/11/2007 @ 7:15 amapplause for leslie (#28); i can’t recall reading a more poignant blog comment, not much you can say to that.
to all who suggest “watch the video”, you’re soliciting us to commit a federal crime. mere possession on one’s hard drive of images portraying minors having sex is against the law.
assistant devil's advocate (dbb157) — 7/11/2007 @ 7:48 amJ Curtis –
What are you on about? Certainly one jury convicted him of one crime and acquitted him of the other. Why do you keep hammering on the “two trials” point? No one here is claiming that there were two trials; please do not make pretty little straw men of our arguments.
I’m getting more and more convinced that you’re ignorant of the details of this case, either accidentally or purposefully. In either eventuality, let me spell it out for you.
There were two charges: the rape of the 17-year-old and the ACM of the 15-year-old. The ACM was not a lesser included charge; it was a separate charge against a separate victim, and the only charge relating to the 15-year-old. Genarlow Wilson was acquitted of the rape of the 17-year-old but convicted of ACM against the 15-year-old. To put it in small words:
The jury said he did something illegal to one alleged victim but not to the other. There is, in fact, an assumption of innocence – the jury, by using “all of the tools and options at its disposal to hammer out a conclusion” (as you put it), concluded that Genarlow Wilson did not rape the 17-year-old. There was no other charge relating to the 17-year-old, and ACM could not have legally applied to the 17-year-old because she was over the age of consent in Georgia. To reiterate: The jury found that Genarlow Wilson did not commit an illegal act against the 17-year-old. Is that clear to you yet?
You’re claiming, point blank, that the jury chose to acquit Genarlow Wilson of the rape of the 17-year-old because they were convicting him of a separate crime against a separate victim. This is inanity at its finest; would you claim that a man brought up on charges of robbing two convenience stores was only acquitted of one of the robberies because the jury decided they only felt like punishing him for one robbery instead of both, even if they felt that he committed both robberies?
Before you try to tell me what my burden is, why don’t you research “Burden of Proof”? You have made a positive claim (Wilson was acquitted of the rape of the 17-year-old because he was convicted of the ACM of the 15-year-old). Burden is, in fact, on you.
You call my points “pontification”, yet you’re making completely unverifiable, baseless claims based on what I can only hope is a misunderstanding of the material facts of the case.
Rick Wilcox (bb4b76) — 7/11/2007 @ 12:51 pmto all who suggest “watch the video”, you’re soliciting us to commit a federal crime. mere possession on one’s hard drive of images portraying minors having sex is against the law.
Funny how some can come to that realization yet still defend the “star” of the kiddie porn video.
J Curtis (ecc9cc) — 7/11/2007 @ 1:56 pmI don’t see any defense of his actions. The jury found that he did not rape the 17 year old, and as to the 15 year old, they convicted him, correctly, under a badly written law that no longer exists.
The law was a mess, and this case is why the legislature changed it. They’ve recognized that the screwed it up. The facts of the crime do not warrant the mandatory sentence he received.
Funny how some can’t grasp that.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/11/2007 @ 9:55 pmI don’t see any defense of his actions.
Some people want to throw a parade for the star/rapist of a child-rape-porn video.
I wonder, if he had been a few days older and 18 years old at the time, would he have as many cheerleaders? The age thing can’t make that much difference since the Wilson cheerleaders can easily fudge the age of consent downward. They like to point out that a pre-age-of-consenter gave her consent as if her consent meant something.
J Curtis (ecc9cc) — 7/12/2007 @ 6:28 amLike who? Quotes, please.
Oh, and when you decide to blow a room full of guys, consent means everything.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/12/2007 @ 1:44 pmRight. Under the law the 15 year old could not give consent, therefore, there was no consent.
sam (08292a) — 7/12/2007 @ 3:32 pmAnd if they’re all minors? What if they’re all 15?
Does everyone get charged?
Pablo (99243e) — 7/12/2007 @ 5:12 pmAnd if they’re all minors? What if they’re all 15?
Does everyone get charged?
Comment by Pablo
What if 17 year old boy rapes a 30 year old woman and video tapes it? No crime?
J Curtis (ecc9cc) — 7/12/2007 @ 9:59 pm61. Charged as a juvenile offender with rape. What about Pablo’s question?
daleyrocks (906622) — 7/12/2007 @ 10:35 pm[…] Petterico, among many others, is excepted, because some conservatives still look askance at federal marshals wielding guns, lubricated by ignorant populist pap, and egged on by every dime-store, wanna-be conservative cowboy in the district, charging in to apprehend and incarcerate every varmint they can muster. […]
Republicans Screw Up Again On Federal Crimes « Constitution Club (0de2f5) — 7/13/2007 @ 1:38 amThen there’s no consent, and a crime (the rape you mention) has occurred, to be dealt with as daleyrocks notes.
Indeed. And more specifically, what has the Georgia Legislature said about 15 year olds having sex with 15 year olds?
Pablo (99243e) — 7/13/2007 @ 4:34 amAnd more specifically, what has the Georgia Legislature said about 15 year olds having sex with 15 year olds?
Comment by Pablo
I don’t know what happens when two 15 year olds have sex in Georgia.
Since when do you care about what’s on the Georgia law books? Your own feelings on what the age of consent should be trumps Georgia’s consent law.
If the 17 year old makes a thousand copies of his child porn video ( which he starred in ) and sells it to 50 year old men on the internet, which aspects of that should be criminally prosecuted? The making of the video? The possession of the video? The selling or buying of the video?
Surely you wouldn’t prosecute him for selling the video if you wouldn’t prosectue him for making the video, right?
J Curtis (ecc9cc) — 7/13/2007 @ 7:04 amNice projection, J. Curtis. The blazingly obvious answer to your question is that we’re talking about a case prosecuted under Georgia law. Why don’t you just have a look at what the Georgia Legislature did with the law Wilson was convicted under after seeing the result of their crappy lawmaking. (Hint: They scrapped what they had and gave it another go.)
Or, you could just Google ‘Romeo and Juliet exception” and apply a bit of common sense. Good luck with that.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/13/2007 @ 8:44 amPerhaps you could run that by DA David McDade, who has distributed the video.
Advocates want DA prosecuted for releasing Wilson video
Aside from that, there being no evidence that Wilson either did the filming or distributed the video, I have no idea what where you’re going with that. That would be a separate charge, one which has not been leveled to my knowledge. Although it has been in another case, despite the fact that there really wasn’t any public distribution. And also in another in which there was.
Now, this is certainly unacceptable behavior, but do you think these kids should get the same sentence for “victimizing” themselves as a predatory adult should get for victimizing them?
Pablo (99243e) — 7/13/2007 @ 9:01 am68
Do you choose not make a distinction between prosecutors exposing a defendant’s crime by showing the evidence to juries and such materials being viewed or distributed for their intended perverted purpose?
J Curtis (ecc9cc) — 7/13/2007 @ 11:43 amNew years party, drinking, gang banging. Sounds like a version of the adult world that’s totally available to young people.
Bill (9b8051) — 7/13/2007 @ 12:00 pmLets face it, kids are far more exposed to OUR creater ways – more than we want to admit.
You have to have a motive – they say – in order to be guilty as charged. Sounded like some ‘adult’ fun got out of hand for the partakers. I see no sinister motives. If it were then the video camera surely would not be present.
Now, we have the adult world – supposedly in charge – who cannot pardon the exact same thing behavior we partake in. I dont excuse any of their actions – including the girls. But what they need is a tight leach and coaching – not ruining there life further. We spend way too much on prisons and way too little on how to guide the young ones. Even if it has to be the hard way. The tough love way.
Displaying it to the jury is the proper forum for the prosecutor. Distributing it otherwise is disseminating child pornography. To my knowledge, Wilson had nothing to do with the tape or its distribution other than that he appeared in it. If you know otherwise, please enlighten me. If not, check yourself and your argument.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/13/2007 @ 12:06 pm71
Are you saying that Wilson appeared in a child porn video against his will?
J Curtis (ecc9cc) — 7/13/2007 @ 1:12 pmNo. I haven’t said anything that even could be reasonably misconstrued as that.
What is it you’re saying? That he shot it? That he distributed it? What?
I am saying that the DA distributed it, as per the article I linked. Not just played it for the jury, but distributed it repeatedly to people who had nothing to do with the prosecution. What about that?
Pablo (99243e) — 7/13/2007 @ 1:41 pmAnd if they’re all minors? What if they’re all 15?
Does everyone get charged?
The criminal courts will not have jurisdiction. The kids will possibly go through juvenile court as either delinquent minors or more likely minors in need of supervision. Their disposition will be referral to social services, maybe probation department, extremely remotely placement in a youth facility.
nk (9c9223) — 7/13/2007 @ 2:55 pm73
It looks to me like you want to see a rapist/child sodomizer/kiddie porn victimizer set free from jail and an innocent person thrown into jail to replace him.
J Curtis (ecc9cc) — 7/14/2007 @ 3:43 am75 It looks to me like you’re a doing hallucinogenics. Back away from the mushrooms.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/14/2007 @ 5:30 am[…] While no sane person would argue that we need sex offender laws, I cannot imagine that any reasonable individual would view Dixon, Wilson, Whitaker or Linaweaver as sex offenders. You know why? Because they aren’t—they are far from it. The laws in Georgia have since changed some; however, they are not retroactive and those highlighted in the cases above have suffered unduly. Other blogs discussing this issue: HERE […]
HicktownPress » Blog Archive » Georgia’s Bizarre Sex Offender Laws (8871cd) — 7/14/2007 @ 7:27 pmPeople are under the misconception that if Genarlow were to do this today, he would not be prosecuted. Romeo and Juliet exception, as applied in this circumstance, turns a felony into a misdemeanor, with a year’s prison sentence. Genarlow was still over the legal age of consent, and the girl wasn’t. The judge overseeing the Habeus petition tried to apply the new law to Genarlow, in essence substituting the new sentence for the original one, and letting him off with time served. The problem is that you can’t substitute sentence under a writ of Habeus Corpus in Georgia.
T. Lawrence (6b3992) — 7/20/2007 @ 8:03 amThe outcome of this case will surely be decided within a week or two at the latest. But, beyond the minimum sentence issue, at hand, a larger question exists: what will Genarlow Wilson do to benefit others from his experience? Certainly, his sentence and incarceration has caused a law to be changed. One could say that is good. But beyond that, Genarlow is an example of a simple, yet profound, principle: Every choice has a consequence.
As former inmate from Federal prison, today I share with business executives and young people that simple message: Every choice has a consequence. http://www.chuckgallagher.com And, while I am extraordinarily sympathetic to Mr. Wilson’s plight, his example has helped other young people evaluate the power of their seemingly simple choices. As the founder of the Choices Foundation, perhaps Genarlow would consider stepping up and helping others understand the power of choice.
Chuck Gallagher (429fdb) — 7/22/2007 @ 3:37 pmHe should feel lucky that he isn’t being charged with producing kiddie porn. He probably shouldn’t allow himself to be videotaped while fucking passed out girls either.
On a side note: if this was about him being black, he’d be a convicted rapist right now.
brainlesswonder (3cf595) — 7/23/2007 @ 9:01 amI work in a high school in Texas. I see so much amongst teenagers. Most of the time it is the girls that seems to be much more advanced in this day than the boys. They feel on the boys they fight over them and so forth and so on.
We should not be so quick to judge when it is not our child. This child belongs to someone may it be black or white.
Take a minute and put yourself in this mother’s shoes. To the parents that have children and especially teenagers, don’t be so quick to point fingers and say what this child deserve. Your child could get caught up in something worst before he reaches the age of 18 and then even after. Will you say your child deserve it. So many parents are in denial about their children, I see it everyday in the schools.
We need to pray for our children and as well as people that in leadership position, that they are making the right decisions, not just when it come to our children, but about being fair period.
What each of us do and say on this earth, we will give an account for it, when we stand before Jesus, so that is why we have to be so careful not to judge and how we tread because we will reap what we sow.
Remember it is Ms. Wilson child today, it may be your child, neice or nephew or cousin tomorrow, will you still feel the same way then.
SDavis (da4261) — 8/15/2007 @ 1:14 pmThe Georgia Supreme Court has issued its opinion in the case. It’s interesting. Wilson’s conviction is voided entirely on “cruel and unusual punishment” grounds in that it was “grossly out of proportion” to the severity of the crime. The Court relied on the change in the law for “evolving standards of decency” but refused to resentence him under the new law because the legislature did not make the new law retroactive, thus setting him altogether free and conviction-free. (Don’t you just love legal reasoning?)
The Court also relied on death penalty cases and the 1910 case of U.S. v. Weems for the “grossly disproportionate = cruel and unusual” reasoning. Interesting.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/26/2007 @ 8:27 amI think that consentual sex should not be a crime
Leah Cartwright (1b33b7) — 12/7/2007 @ 3:36 pmand that teenagers are not children. It is a
moral issue not a legal issue. This law as it
stands only punishes the men and boys. If a 13
year old girl broke any other law, she would
be held accountable so it should be illegal in the first place. The law only makes it illegal
if charges are filed. Many teenage girls have
sex at 11 and up. I don’t think we should pick and choose who to prosecute. I also think consentual sex should not be considered violent at all. It take two.
I also think that the DA should be held accountable but so should the laws in general.
Black or white, people need to be treated right.
http://www.google.com
ovenciemn (e006ac) — 1/18/2008 @ 8:55 amhttp://www.yahoo.com
http://www.msn.com